"Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost is just never going to get universals right," says my friend Matt Anderson, "It’s impossible. I am giving up."
Of course, his faux resignation doesn't fool me for a second which is why I've decided to bait him by writing a post that will likely only be of interest to Matt, me, and the handful of Biola students who recently stayed up way too late debating the concept of Platonic "Forms" or "Universals." (Note: More on GodBlogCon tomorrow.)
One of the questions we addressed was whether blind people could know the form of the color Green since they could not perceive it with their senses. Matt responded matter-of-factly that angels don't have eyes either and yet they can know the color green. (The ability to make such dogmatic, brilliant, and utterly absurd claims with a completely straight face is one of the many reasons I love the guy.) But Matt's claim goes even further. His position is not only that angels can see green but that the "form" green existed even before there were men or angels to perceive colors at all.
Matt's claim is based on the ideas of Plato, who posited a curious cosmology in which the universe is an eternal process by which the demiurgos beheld the good (agathos) and overflowed with forms (eidos). These, in turn, informed the material world (chaos) forever forming it into a cosmos. Creation, according to Plato, consists of a dualism between the co-eternal realities of Form and matter.
The Forms, though, aren't simply abstract concepts (at least not in the way we think of abstract) but have a real, self-sufficient existence. To Plato, the idea of a horse exists independently of any actual animal that we would call a "horse." Even if all horses were to become extinct and all such creature faded from memory, the Form of the horse would continue to exist.
Since every group of beings and objects that ever existed would have a corresponding Form, there would be more Forms in existence than any other entity. Since there is an infinite number of real numbers (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4...ad infinitum) there would also be an infinite number of real number Forms. In fact, we would have an infinite number of infinite Forms. (Fortunately, these Forms don't take up much space because there is purportedly more of them in existence than there is space in the universe.)
This leads to the question, "Where is God amidst all these Forms?" Plato had no difficulty in answering this conundrum: he simply posited that the God (the demiurgos) had an existence that was co-equal to these Forms. Christians, in contrast, believe that nothing can be self-existent other than God Himself. Biblical Christianity, of course, rejects such metaphysical pluralism so Platonic Christians are forced to circumvent this difficulty by adopting a modified Platonism. They claim that while the Forms do not have aseity (existence in themselves) they do exist necessarily (i.e., they cannot not exist). What this means is that God's existence is only causally prior to but not temporally prior to their existence.
We can compare this to the existential relation of God to the universe. God existed before (temporally prior to) the universe and was the cause of its coming into existence. By contrast, the position of modified Platonism is that while God is the cause of the existence of the Forms he did not exist prior to their existence. Therefore, while God caused Green, His existence does not precede the form of that particular color. Green, like all forms according to this neo-Platonic idea, existed before the angels or any other thing in creation.
(Question: If all forms have existence, what about the form of "aseity?" Did that form exist causally prior to the other forms? If not, then how did these forms instantiate the form of aseity?)
The problem with this view, as philosopher J.P. Moreland points out,* is that since these entities exist necessarily, they are independent of the divine will. God is not free to not create such beings. Under this view, God could not have existed alone and had no other choice but to create these Forms. This appears to me to be inconsistent with the orthodox Christian understanding of God, particularly in relation to his creation.
While I might be persuaded that angels can see green, I'm not sure I can buy the idea that God had no choice but to create such forms as horses, colors, and angels. It seems rather absurd to claim that while we can decide whether or not to create a blog post, God had no choice but to create the form "blog post", the universal, eternally existing form to which all of us bloggers aspire.
*Moreland and Craig, Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview (pg. 505)
Joe writes:
The problem with this view, as philosopher J.P. Moreland points out,* is that since these entities exist necessarily, they are independent of the divine will. God is not free to not create such beings. Under this view, God could not have existed alone and had no other choice but to create these Forms. This appears to me to be inconsistent with the orthodox Christian understanding of God, particularly in relation to his creation.
I do not know where I come down in this discussion. I have not given it enough thought. But I see a problem with the above quoted line.
What about Love, Power, Charity, Truth, etc. Do these things only exist because YHWH has decided they should exist, or do they exist necessarily?
Am I straying off topic or are these things the same thing?
We know that YHWH's power is limited, correct? For example, He cannot sin. So perhaps because He is, these also must be?
We know that YHWH's power is limited, correct? For example, He cannot sin.
Who would God sin against? We sin against God by disobeying Him, how would this apply to God? Does he disobey Himself? This is reminds of those who say that God's power is limited because he can't make a square circle or a 5-sided triangle.
Hmmmm. That's another thing that ties my brain in knots, ucfengr.
As for me, I believe Jesus is capable of sin but will not sin. Is that on topic?
Perhaps where He is concerned there is no difference between capability and will. Although it is difficult for me to understand how He could have become fully man and yet not capable of sin.
To play the Devil's (I mean Plato's) advocate here, I don't think Christian platonists would insist these forms coexisting before all worlds apart from God. Rather, they would say that they are rooted in the being of God. God creates (as we create) because we have things in us to express.
The cat is both alive and dead in the closed box. Once the box is open even God has to deal with the consequences, all other options are gone.
Why would you think God creates the forms? If we're talking about Platonic forms, then they exist necessarily, either independently of God or as part of God's nature. We're not talking about Platonic forms if God has to create them. They're necessary entities.
As for angels, of course they could experience greenness. Since colors are only in our minds anyway (i.e. a merely material being would not have any conscious experience to begin with, never mind experience of colors), why couldn't an immaterial being experience the sensation we have when we see green?
Matt responded matter-of-factly that angels don't have eyes either and yet they can know the color green.
Are cherubim angels? If so, not only do angels have eyes, but they are "full of eyes." Might make a creepy Halloween costume.
I'm not sure I can buy the idea that God had no choice but to create such forms as horses, colors, and angels. It seems rather absurd to claim that while we can decide whether or not to create a blog post, God had no choice but to create the form "blog post", the universal, eternally existing form to which all of us bloggers aspire.
How about this argument: God is omniscient, so He always knows the best choice. God is all perfection, so He will always make the best choice. To do other than the best action would require either that He be ignorant of the best action or that He act contrary to his perfect nature. Therefore, God does not have freedom in any meaningful sense.
Or this one: Choice implies decision or an action not yet taken. It cannot come before after the decision or action. God transcends time which he created, therefore "before," "after," and "choice" do not apply to God. (We might argue that only in the person of Jesus does God have choice, because Jesus the man is within time).
I wrote:
It cannot come before after the decision or action.
That should be:
It cannot come after the decision or action.
I am out of my depth here; but I will try to play with the adults
Jeremy
If we're talking about Platonic forms, then they exist necessarily, either independently of God or as part of God's nature. We're not talking about Platonic forms if God has to create them. They're necessary entities.
It seems any discussion that places anything physical in the universe as "part of God's nature" or "necessary" gets very close to (Very close) to pantheism or parentheism: God didn't stand outside the universe and create it but is the universe. Can there be any physical form that is necessary. As to other kinds of "forms" . . .
Eric and Lisa
What about Love, Power, Charity, Truth, etc. Do these things only exist because YHWH has decided they should exist, or do they exist necessarily?
I do not know Plato but aspects of character and internal nature do not seem the same as physical forms like a horse. If God is a personal God then God has a character and personality.
Nick
Choice implies decision or an action not yet taken. It cannot come before after the decision or action. God transcends time which he created, therefore "before," "after," and "choice" do not apply to God. (We might argue that only in the person of Jesus does God have choice, because Jesus the man is within time).
Anything created within the Universe (like Jesus) would be created in time and that thing would have a beginning, end, before, after etc. It is interesting about whether God would experience time - but once He created something in time He would still observe that thing's past and present, etc. - so God would be aware of the passing of time within the universe wouldn't He?
How many people live in poverty and die and go to hell while you engage in this mental masturbation?
Wow jayf
All you have thought on today, or pursued, has either helped people raise themselves from poverty or moved people to Christ?
You are very righteous.
jayf -
You remind me of someone:
Welch said he’d been wondering about Southern Baptists and that if “we’d spend less time on these websites that we’d be able to spend more time witnessing?
“Do you think if we spent less time blogging we might have more time to do some baptizing?
“Do you think if we spent less time fumbling around with those computers we might have more converts?”
Welch advised the crowd not to gloat that he’s chiding “them bloggin’ boys. Why, you run around with that wireless telephone up in your ear all day long like a pacifier.
“You think if we’d spend less time with those wireless telephones and more time on the street we wouldn’t win more people to Jesus?”
Tragic. Simply tragic.
What about Love, Power, Charity, Truth, etc. Do these things only exist because YHWH has decided they should exist, or do they exist necessarily?[...] We know that YHWH's power is limited, correct? For example, He cannot sin. So perhaps because He is, these also must be?
You are confusing attributes of God's character with "forms." Things such as justice, mercy, and love cannot not exist because they are part of God's character. They are not created things.
This is akin to the question that Socrates asked: Is a thing good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is good?
The answer is none of the above. It is good because it corresponds to God's being.
As for the second half of your question, it commits a category error. The question isn't that God's power is "limited." It is not. But neither can he violate his own nature. That is why God cannot lie or sin or create a rock so big that even he cannot pick it up. To do so would violate his own nature.
As for the color "green," it is really nothing more than a certain, visible frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum. Our eyes and optic nerve happen to have the ability to detect this frequency, and we have been trained since childhood to recognize it as "green." But our eyes and optic nerves do not have the ability to detect the frequency called "infra-red," yet it still exists, apart from our detecting it. And we have created machines that can detect it.
I have trouble seeing how a Platonist can be a Christian, seeing as Platonists see the material world as corrupt and evil, a mere "shadow" of the world of "forms." (See Plato's analogy of "The Cave.") Yet Scripture teaches that God created the physical universe and declared it good.
That is why so many early Greeks had trouble accpting the Incarnation; how could a perfect God in the world of forms deign to become a physical being? A lot of early gnosticism was influenced by neo-Platonic thinking on such things.
Tom -
For a great example of a Christian Platonist - see Augustine. Or C. S. Lewis.
But I actually agree with you. Platonism has some great intellectual resources, but in order for us to use them it needs to be refined through the furnace of the incarnation. And the imago dei. And Genesis 1.
Wonders
Lewis? I haven't read a ton of what he wrote - but I have read what I have read alot. How do you see him being platonist?
Certainly, I have seen nothing of the subject of this post - physical forms being a necessary part of God and creation - in what I have read.
Can you explain this more?
Anderson's blog links a photo taken at your convention which includes himself and you. I assume you're the one on the far side of the table, with the light blue shirt and dark sportcoat?
In which case, do you know you look like Kevin Spacey in The Usual Suspects?
Look, I'm sorry to have left a grumpy, obnoxious post this morning. I used to be an evangelical christian. After years in full time ministry, I just couldn't help finally coming to the conclusion that we were all just fooling ourselves. I didn't see christians as a community exhibiting behavior significantly different from non-believers (certainly not different enough for a person to conclude that we must be spiritually alive while everyone else was spiritally dead). I saw myself and my peers constantly "seeking God's will" and claiming his guidance, but in reality doing nothing more than looking to the Bible and peer group to justify our decisions.
It's a much longer story, of course, but over time I came to the conclusion that it was all a fraud.
For years I went about my own business. I was a bit remorseful that I had led lots of folks into this silly pretend belief system, but I took comfort in the notion that what they were doing was a shameful waste of time, but mostly harmless.
But then the evangelical community played a pivotal role giving us and the world GW Bush. Now you've done real harm. Thousands of US casualties from a trumped-up, immoral, preemptive war in Iraq. Somewhere between 400,000 and 900,000 dead in Iraq. Terror and bloodshed escalating in response to our disasterous (did I say immoral?) policies in the middle east. Global warming ignored. Our own economy seriously threatened by mind-numbing deficits.
I'm sorry guys, but because you did so much to give us GW Bush I blame a lot of this on you and your pretend religion.
You claim to be Christians, but your lives bear almost no similarity to Jesus' life. You claim to be his followers but you've turned his teaching on its head.
And because of the ease with which you've been duped into supporting Bush and the republican agenda, my future, and my children's future is starting to look pretty bleak.
I'm angry with you. I wish I could get you to understand how far you are from the plain, simple teaching and example of Jesus.
I don't follow it myself. I think the golden rule is a far better moral standard than the bible. But if you guys would actually follow Jesus, I think we'd all be in a much better situation.
I've just finihsed re-reading Augustine's Confessions, where something like this question is taken up in the latter chapters. Augustine believes that something like the Forms must have been created simultaneously with the natural universe. However, unlike the natural universe, the Forms are not subject to motion and change. They were created to be everlastingly the same. Thus, they are outside time, because time is just another word for motion or change. So they are created (not eternal) but they are also timeless (not timebound, as we are).
In other words, there only appears to be a problem because we are thinking in terms of two categories (eternal and uncreated v. timebound and created) when we should be thinking in terms of three (eternal and uncreated, timeless and created, timebound and created).
Hi Joe,
I'm a fellow Mere-O blogger with Matt and I talked to you after the Hugh Hewitt panel about Shaeffer, pre-evangelism and culture - an interesting discussion. Thanks for being so gracious with us young people!
I'm an Augustinian Christian Platonist (I guess!) and I suspect that Forms exist as ideas in the mind of God. I think this solves your dilemma, which is as follows: God must alone exist independently as the fount of existence but Forms seem to exist independently.
If Forms are ideas, then they exist in a dependent way to God analogous to the way our thoughts exist in our minds. They are also eternal because God is eternal and thought of them "in" His eternal mode of existence.
Someone objected that Christian platonism isn't incarnational enough. Well, on the view that Forms are ideas, I think this problem is solved as well. The Form of horse, for instance, exists non-physically in the Mind of God until the act of creation when the Form is instantiated in a particular horse. You'll notice that this form of creation is analogous to the Word of God, who is/was/will be eternal, but "became flesh and dwelt among us" in time and space.
Although this isn't even close to satisfactory, I hope it helps a bit, argues for Matt's position, and promotes more discussion!
Many blessings on you and your ministry, Mr. Carter!
JCHFleetguy -
The best example is at the end of The Last Battle where Digory tells the kids its all in Plato. Narnia and Earth weren't the real thing but shadowlands, and Heaven was the real Narnia and Earth. This is one aspect of C. S. Lewis that I disagree with, even though I also recommend him without reservation.
Andrew -
I like that a good deal better. I'm serious that I think its essential to salvage some of the greatness out of Greek philosophy. I just don't see how you get off first base in argument with an atheist without the notion of the unmoved mover. But I think we've traditionally gone too far down the anticreational road - despite rejecting the more obvious heresies. I think what you propose is a good point of reconciliation.
Andrew
All this is highly speculative with zero substantiation in Scripture. Second, it doesn't address the problem Platonism has with the physical creation, set aside for the moment Christ's Incarnation.
God declared the physical creation good. Platonists see it as a lower form (sorry for that word, but it's the only that works here) of reality, corrupt and incapable of redemtion. That is hard to square with Christianity.
Jayf
Thanks for the sincere apology - and I will apologize for the comment I left. A couple of comments.
First, why come here? Really. To convince us we have been led into a "silly pretend belief system". For those of us for whom this was not an intellectual exercise - but a real work of God - you do not stand a chance. I experience God. Why try to lead anyone into another belief system?
Of course, the "you guys" parts of your comments are the worst kind of generalization and stereotyping. We didnt all vote for President Bush; or believe the Iraq invasion of 2003 was justified; nor have we all been "duped into supporting Bush and the republican agenda".
You, of course, should realize how arrogant your "shameful waste of time" type comments are when applied to the faith of others. Your decision that (God didnt exist; Jesus was raised from the dead; or whatever - not sure what you decided) has really made you no better an arbiter of what is spirtitually dead or alive than any of the rest of us. I agree, BTW, that followers of Christ are not the arbiter of that either - God is. And I agree that the Body of Christ has many, many parts that seem to think that particular judgement is theirs to make; and it isn't. However, you are doing the same here yourself.
So, back to my original question: why come to a place to engage people you obviously believe are morally bankrupt and foolish if you are going to do so in a way that seeks not understanding and education ("I wish I could get you to understand how far you are from the plain, simple teaching and example of Jesus"); but only wields a bat against the side of their heads.
Regretfully, as I learn every day of my life, while the Golden Rule is an expression of general revelation known to the whole world; the teachings of Jesus are neither simple nor plain. They are far more difficult to understand than the Golden Rule; and impossible to put into practice through our mental understanding anyway.
JP,
Thanks for using green (instead of some other color).
gb/db
Tom -
I think Andrew has addressed at least some of those points. In so far as Platonism marginalizes creation, Christians should not be Platonists. But it seems there is a possibility for Christianized Platonism - something that salvages the good from Platonism while rejecting where it is off-base.
The idea of forms as thoughts in God's mind helps, because, though they are the standard by which we might judge creation, they are not sufficient in themselves. The solution to creation marred is not an escape into the "Heaven" of the forms, but new creation breaking in.
Perhaps this is so far from actual Platonism not to warrant going by the name. I leave that to smarter people.
Andrew/Wonders
I realize this, but I guess my problem comes from trying to "Christianize" something that inherently is not Christian. That was the mistake of the Scholastics during the Renaissance. They took Aristotle, among others, and tried to Christianize him, the result being some pretty screwy theology.
I'm not saying we shouldn't study these things or that their insights are pointless; I am, after all, a college philosophy major. Again, I just wonder why we have to take something and try to make it what it is not.
Sola scriptura...? Anyone...?
So, Dan, do you believe in protons? After all, they aren't in the Bible...
JCHFleetguy,
A few quick thoughts:
1. Why come here? A very good question -- one I'll be thinking more about. Some preliminary reasons: This is an open forum where evangelicals discuss religion, politics and culture. I'm sure this is an uphill battle, but probably not all professing evangelicals on this site are as committted to their beliefs as you seem to be. And there may be folks here who are just curious or interested. This is something I'm passionate about. I want to offer evangelicals an alternative point of view -- even if many are not open to the message. And I certainly want to reach those who are evangelical-curious. It's a little like standing in front of an evangelical-belief clinic with my pro-rationality plackard. But perhaps I can find a better place, or places. I'd love to get an opportunity to speak at my local church ;)
2. About generalization and stereotyping: 68% of evangelicals voted for Bush in 2000, and 78% voted for him in 2004. I have high praise for the 22%. I am sorry to have implicated them (you?) in our ongoing disaster.
3. On arrogance: This is just frank talk. Saying that in my opinion your beliefs are a waste of time at best, and dangerous and destructive at worst is no more arrogant than the evangelical insistence that christianity is the only true religion and that everyone who is not a christian is damned. Maybe that's what you're saying in your note. Maybe we just need to be honest about the facts as we see them.
4. On simplicity and practice: A favorite quote of mine is actually on the EO front page: "The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament."
-- Soren Kierkegaard
You may not be a fan of Kierkegaard, but I think he puts it well. It's an interesting irony of EO that the site can have this quote on its "cover" and this discussion thread on its pages.
Honestly, Tom, I think its a matter of Mission. When the gospel of Christ makes contact with a culture, does it simply condemn everything? Or does it also affirm the aspects of that culture that are true and good? In the City of God, Augustine was doing the work of a missionary - not hesitating for a minute to challenge prized elements of Roman culture which were at odds with the gospel (eg, suicide as an honorable death) - yet appealing to the aspects of Roman culture which elevated truth and were not far from the kingdom (in his opinion, Platonism).
What happens when new peoples are brought into the Kingdom of God? Is all their former work in the arts, sciences, and philosophy lost? Or can some of it, in submitting to the lordship of Christ, find its true fulfillment? We know that God often makes great use of our individual talents that we gained before coming to Christ. Why should this be any different at a cultural level?
God declared the physical creation good. Platonists see it as a lower form (sorry for that word, but it's the only that works here) of reality, corrupt and incapable of redemtion. That is hard to square with Christianity.
Biblically this declaration that physical creation was good happened before The Fall did it not? Even so does Christianity not hold the 'heaven' (whatever that means in context of this discussion) is better than physical creation as we know it???
Wonders
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say. I'm all for redeeming the culture, salvaging what is good, etc. After all, all truth is God's truth. I also believe we should study and understand all that the world teaches. It makes us better-informed Christians. Again, however, you can't take a sow's ear and simply declare it a silk purse. It must have some essential "silkness" to it for it even being capable of this. Platonism is, at its core, unbiblical because of its view of the physical creation.
Boonton:
You've touched on a common fallacy among too many biblically illiterate Christians--yeah, I know you're not one of them--who think our ultimate destiny is as disembodied spirits in some ethereal place called "heaven," but Scripture in fact teaches that we will have a new heaven and--important point here--a new earth, i.e., the physical creation will remain, and we will be physical beings inhabiting it.
JayF
Thanks for the reply. As per your #3 - that is exactly what I am talking about. I do not mind certainty frankly - yours or mine - as long as we do not criticize the other for their certainty while maintaining that we know. I know I cannot prove God exists; and I know that you cannot prove he doesnt.
However, God can prove He exists and does - that is why I do not think you can take too much credit for those you led to Christ before your "conversion" - nor would you be able to take much credit for those you turned away now.
Hey, I am a relationship evangelist - we do not argue people into believing, or not believing, in God. We attract people to our view by who we are - that "salt and light" thing. Perhaps it isnt wise of me to give a anti-Christian evangelist advice to make them more effective - but my mom was right: you attract more flies with honey . . .
Anyway, it was a pleasure.
tom,
A point of curiosity, what is the difference between the fall of the angels and the fall of man? Didn't the angels come first with Satan rebelling against God? If so it seems like God took the fall of man much more seriously even though the Biblical story makes it sound almost like an accident when compared with a direct insurrection against God?
Either viewing heaven as some type of 'spirity' realm or a New Earth(tm) the fact remains that just because the Bible says creation is good doesn't mean that it is perfect or on equal footing with the 'ideal forms' world.
Boonton
Your first question is one I've pondered for a long time. God knew before the creation of the world that he would need a savior for mankind, but what about the angels? Is there a savior for them? I honestly don't know. Anyone else have some thoughts here?
The initial creation was good, but due to the fall of man it has become corrupted (cf. Romans 8). But Scripture is clear that it will be redeemed. MOreover, Platonism cannot even abide the idea of a "good" physical realm, so even the initial, uncorrupted physical creation goes against Platonism.
jayf,
Your background and current approach are quite interesting. While I was never a preacher, I come from small-town, Christian roots and after experiencing the difference between Christians' talk and their actions I've come to conclusions similar to yours. Some Christians — like some Jews, some Muslims, some atheists, etc. — are people who lead exempliary lives and are people I admire. But this collection of hard-core, rightwing evangelicals who are covinced they are following the One True Way while disingenuously shouting about their humility, who believe everyone else is going to Hell, who have politicized their religion to the point where it seems to be an arm of Bush-Chenney-Rovianism, .... Well, I think it is useful to participate in their open forums from time to time if only, as you say, to provide the evangelical-curious other points of view.
Here at EO I've gone from being eager to learn about evangelicals to being just plain disgusted with what I've found. Rather than starting with the message of Jesus and honoring the Sermon on the Mount, they use the Bible to justify the more divisive, self-serving, ingroup, irrational positions one can imagine. Rather follow people who preach goodwill, they choose leaders who advocate ill-will. And they've gained enough polical power to negatively affect our lives and the lives of our children.
Wonders for Oyarsa:
What do you mean by "believing in"? Do you mean acknowledging them as real? If so, yes. I acknowledge lots of things as real that aren't part of the bible, like bookshelves, computers, lightbulbs, and all kinds of fun things that are at my immediate disposal that I am currently interacting with! Neat! I'm so glad you have given me this opportunity to affirm your insecurities concerning my previous comment. Not only do I affirm that reality exists, but I affirm it enthusiastically! Thanks!
Rather than starting with the message of Jesus ...--AndyS
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me' " (John 14:6).
Note the definite article "the" in each of these instances. Sounds pretty "divisive" to me, excluding all others.
Wonders did well at addressing Tom's concerns in #23.
I would only add that Plato actually thinks formed matter is good. Unformed matter is not, which is bad according to Christian theology, but it is all theory in Plato b/c unformed matter exists outside our experience. See Plato's Timaeus.
Christians think that matter is good, but not as good as spiritual substance, i.e. the stuff God is made out of (to speak crudely), stuff angels are made out of and stuff like our souls. As long as Christians reject the Plato's idea that unformed matter is evil, which he posited to help him with his creation story, we can be Platonists. I'm sure there are other problems, but I hope that helps.
Dan,
But how did you learn about photons, if not from the Bible? And if you hold this source as in any way authoritative, do you maintain you still adhere to Sola Scriptura?
Andrew -
I don't think it's quite that simple - I do think you need to take Tom's concerns on board. I'd be interested, for instance, on your thoughts of the work of N. T. Wright. He has some pretty serious challenges to Christoplatonism, and his writing is rather brilliant.
I do think, for instance, that the vision that Lewis gave at the end of The Last Battle had too much Platonism and not enough Christianity. The idea of the world simply being destroyed, and us leaving it and going into the Heaven that the material world reminded us of - this vision is not the one of, say the end of Revelation. Here we see completed Creation, free of the curse, delighting in the victory of the sons of God. Finally we see the new Jerusalem coming down FROM heaven TO Earth. It's the ultimate realization of the Lord's prayer - thy kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven. The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our God and of his Christ. Our redeemer lives, and at the last he shall stand upon the Earth.
This is a critique of much of Platonism. And I think the critique desperately needs to be made, because many Christians today have bought into this anti-Creational emphasis.
Where I differ with Tom is at least a desire to take on board as much Platonic philosophy as I can while being faithful to scripture. For instance, the notion of the unmoved mover and first cause is marvelous, and amazingly supportive of the name of God "I AM". The idea of an absolute moral and natural law has proved a very helpful tool in building a Christian society. I don't want to simply trash the great work of Aquinas and Augustine. But nor do I want to perpetuate any mistakes these great men made.
Kevin In which case, do you know you look like Kevin Spacey in The Usual Suspects?
I don’t think anyone has told me I look like Verbal Kint (or Keyser Soze) before. Usually I get “The Joker from Batman” or Tim Roth or, from your less charitable co-blogger Tgirsch, Jim Nabors. ; )
Andrew Forms exist as ideas in the mind of God. I think this solves your dilemma, which is as follows: God must alone exist independently as the fount of existence but Forms seem to exist independently.
I believe that was Matt’s line of thinking too. Something I don’t quite get, though, is that if forms are “ideas in the mind of God” then wouldn’t they stay in God’s mind? If we take God’s mind to be analogous to our minds then we must believe that the ideas are self-contained within God Himself. Perhaps, though, the ideas travel from God to humans like Dawkin’s “memes”. ; )
Many blessings on you and your ministry, Mr. Carter!
Thanks, Andrew. It was really great meeting you. I really enjoyed our discussion.
JayF It's a little like standing in front of an evangelical-belief clinic with my pro-rationality plackard.
I always find it amusing how people who accept the most irrational ideas (e.g., atheism) claim such loyalty to rationalism.
(On second thought, that is not quite right. Atheism is not so much irrational as arational. To be an atheist is to give up a fixed reference from which rationality can precede. You can still act rational, you just don't have a solid reason for doing so.)
Wonders of Oyarsa:
Ahh... I see... your understanding of "sola scriptura" is completely fundamentalist. Your definition of sola Scriptura and mine are not compatible. A Lutheran understand of Sola Scriptura pertains only to matters of faith, to which angels belong. Quantum particles do not belong to the realm of faith; they are verifiable via empirical methods. Speculating on whether or not angels can see green seems rather silly to me; but I hate apologetics and philosophy.
Of course, I don't actually understand Sola Scriptura like that. My understanding is that the doctrine means that nothing trumps or is coequal with scripture in forming theology. So I didn't see what the problem was with talking about other wise philosophies insofar as they don't contradict scripture.
The speculation above isn't quite as silly as it may seem. It's not really about angels seeing green, but things that spill over to issues like whether it really matters if we pollute God's creation since it is all going to burn anyway.
Wonders wrote;
It's not really about angels seeing green, but things that spill over to issues like whether it really matters if we pollute God's creation since it is all going to burn anyway.
We should take care of God's creation because we have been given stewardship over it.
Gensis 1:28, "And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living then that moves on the earth."
and it is going to all burn anyway.
2 Peter 3:5, "But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly men."
and
2 Peter 3:10, "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its words will be burned up. 11: Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduect and godliness 12: looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!"
But each time the Lord destroys His creation it is replaced with a new creation. Which still makes me wonder about the forms.
It seems that some people agreed with my position that because God exists some other things must exist, like truth, power and love.
Is the debate then centered around whether these things might only exist in His mind?
For instance, the notion of the unmoved mover and first cause is marvelous, and amazingly supportive of the name of God "I AM". The idea of an absolute moral and natural law has proved a very helpful tool in building a Christian society. I don't want to simply trash the great work of Aquinas and Augustine. But nor do I want to perpetuate any mistakes these great men made.
First, the idea of the First Cause and Unmoved Mover is attributable to Aristotle, not Plato. But I agree with your several points. Again, however, I remain unconvinced that you can incorporate incarnational Christianity and Platonism as a whole.
Dear Jay F and AndyS,
Your problem, if I can be so blunt, is you were both attempting to find God in people, and when you found that people were not perfect, you then made the illogical conclusion that God is not perfect. Or in JayF's experience came to the conclusion that God doesn't even exist.
Your next illogical leap is that somehow "evangelicals" are responsible to the election of GWB. How, I don't know, but evangelicals are an easy target since you are both pre-disposed to disliking, if not hating, Christians. Expecially ones who take the Bible seriously.
And finally, for JayF. I am having some difficulty in believing your claim that you were a minister. It is just all too coincidental that your lead in talks about your "de-conversion" which then lauches so neatly into your hatred for GWB. It is just too well planned for me to believe.
Saintknowitall
Joe Carter writes
Something I don’t quite get, though, is that if forms are “ideas in the mind of God” then wouldn’t they stay in God’s mind? If we take God’s mind to be analogous to our minds then we must believe that the ideas are self-contained within God Himself.
The analogy of ideas in our minds actually helps the argument, I believe. When we do art, say a painting of a landscape, we have the idea of the landscape in our minds and then we instantiate the idea in our particular painting.
Now the analogy breaks down insofar as we perceive things as particulars and not universals because we think in time (I think). But surely God, as the immaterial, omniscient being He is, can perceive universals such as green. Then, when He wants to go and create grass, for instance, He "puts" greenness into it because it is an idea in his mind.
Anyway, I hope this discussion is as fun for you as it is for me! I appreciate an excellent Christian culture warrior engaging with students on philosophy. :)
Atheists do have a fixed reference for rationality. It's called reality. And there is a solid reason to follow it. It works.
I think you meant to say that theism is arational as it proceeds from an unsubstantiated claim and refuses to be modified by either logic or experience.
Ex-Preacher,
Do you find Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins' arguments compelling?
Eric & Lisa (and all who are interested):
My answer to your argument can be found here.
AHA! Now THIS is one of the reasons I keep coming back--real, live thought about theology!
I probably have been too guilty of trying to "baptize Plato" over the years, but I think of forms as ideas in the mind of God; not intrinsically necessary in the sense that nothing is binding on God, but part and parcel of creation, perhaps as part of the role of the Logos (God the son). As for the forms of things such as the virtues (Love, Justice, etc.) they are inherent in the character of God, and their opposites (Hate, or Injustice) are defined by their degree of difference from that attribute of God the "form" reflects.
As I read back over this, it's not even all that clear to me. But Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, among others all seem to be on to something!
"It is just all too coincidental that your lead in talks about your "de-conversion" which then lauches so neatly into your hatred for GWB."
Interesting point. So Jay F has gone from supposedly being a Christian to being a person who hates another human being (GWB) and those who voted for him. Hmmm.... and this is better how?
Also, his claim to having once been a Minister is kind of dented with this statement "I think the golden rule is a far better moral standard than the bible." Except the Golden Rule is IN the Bible and was said by Jesus. Anyone remotely familiar with the Bible, as a Minister certainly would be, would know this.
Plus his claim of "400,000 to 900,000" dead in Iraq also does not do the issue of his honesty any good.
I don't like war. I hate war. But anyone who thinks we could just ignore Islamic fascism (al-Qaeda) and Arab fascism (Saddam Hussein) and not suffer for it in the long run much, much worse than we are now, is not someone playing with a full deck.
Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!